Why FE believers never will show you a perfect map?

What does the subsolar point have to do with anything?  Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead? 

Because the Earth is curved, the sun appears in the sky at different angles relative to the viewer, than if the earth was flat.

The data confirms this.

In what do you base these claims? 

We have been wondering that about you for a loooong time now

Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?

Again, precisely what we wonder about you.

(disclaimer: 'we' refers to people who know the Earth is round based on the evidence, but who are more than willing to accept otherwise if evidence to the contrary is presented.)

So, let me get this straight.  Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations? 

So, let me get this straight.  Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?

The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 05:14:04 AM

So, let me get this straight.  Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?

The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.

So, we would see the burning ball at different angles from different locations?

Quote from: Omega on August 28, 2016, 05:18:17 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 05:14:04 AM

So, let me get this straight.  Your claim is that, on a flat Earth, we would not see a burning ball in the sky at different angles from different locations?

The angles would be different. And I think you know that's what I mean.

So, we would see the burning ball at different angles from different locations?

You are trying to turn this upside down.

We have a set of data, which shows at what angle the sun is visible at any point in time at any place.

That set of data can be verified.

If the data says 'the sun will appear X degrees above the horizon at location Y at time Z', we can go to place Y at time Z and check the angle X.

If the Earth is flat, the set of data would consist of different values for X, Y and Z than on a round Earth.

We can calculate this. If we use the current data and project this on a flat Earth, the numbers don't work anymore. They are inaccurate.

Since the numbers are accurate (we can check this) and the numbers ONLY work on a round Earth orbiting the Sun, the data supports the theory.

This means we can actually navigate by the Sun. We can find our location on the sphere based on the time and position of the Sun in the sky.

How often is this data actually verified?  My guess would be 0% of the time. 

How often is this data actually verified?  My guess would be 0% of the time.

First: saying it is not verified is not the same as proving it isn't. It isn't even proof the data is inaccurate.

Second: You can verify it yourself. At your current location. You don't even have to pay for gas. Just go outside and check.

Once again, you are completely beaten. I predict either complete silence or a wall of text with irrelevant links and madey-uppy stuff to deflect.

...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything?  Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead?  In what do you base these claims?  Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?

Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?

Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.

When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.

Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified.  Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?

Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified.  Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?

I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.

Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?

Doooo iiiiit.....

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 05:03:21 AM

...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything?  Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead?  In what do you base these claims?  Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?

Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?

Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.

When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.

I still fail to see why there can't be a sub solar point on a flat Earth. 

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 06:04:36 AM

Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified.  Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?

I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.

Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?

Doooo iiiiit.....

But, I was outside last night at the beach with my nephew and I commented on how flat the horizon is.  He agreed.  I then verified this morning that it still is very flat. 

Quote from: SpJunk on August 28, 2016, 06:02:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 05:03:21 AM

...
What does the subsolar point have to do with anything?  Are you claiming that if the Earth is flat, the sun can't be directly overhead?  In what do you base these claims?  Perhaps you are simply making crud up and trying to pass it off as evidence?

Perhaps.
Debunk it.
Which facts will emerge in the process?

Have in mind that subsolar point isn't static.
It has ground speed.
And ALL subsolar points in every moment on Flat Earth and on Globe Earth must correspond.

When subsolar point is in Panama City on Globe Earth,
it can't be somewhere else on Flat Earth.
Same goes for Manaus in Brazil, for Kampala in Uganda,
and for any city, village, mountain peak, ...
between two Tropics.

I still fail to see why there can't be a sub solar point on a flat Earth.

What you fail to see is that the sun at a given time will seem to be at a different point in the sky based on your location. And that we know exactly where the sun will be at any given point in time on any given point on Earth. And that these predictions only work on a round Earth.

I have a terrific astronomy program, called Stellarium. I can enter my location and check the location of every known celestial body. I can actually predict with 100% accuracy what will be visible at any time at any place (obviously not including clouds or physical obstacles).

Handy little tool will even let me remove the ground and see the entire sky as a full 'sphere' around us, showing where the stars would be visible if the Earth was transparent.

And it all... ads... up...

There are no discrepancies. I can take a screenshot of the sky in Australia at this time, send it to someone in Australia and the picture will match.

All this... because the data is correct. We know where everything is, was and where it will be.

So it's not just that we have an accurate map of the globe. We have an accurate map of the globe in relation to an accurate map of the sky.

And it is accurate. All... the friggin'... time...

Quote from: Omega on August 28, 2016, 06:06:36 AM

Quote from: jroa on August 28, 2016, 06:04:36 AM

Saying that something can be verified is not the same as saying it has been verified.  Funny how different words have different meanings, am I right?

I am saying *you* can go outside and verify it. And if the data matches the observation, this is evidence for the theory that the Earth is round.

Do it. Go outside. Give in to your doubts and do some actual checking for once.

Perhaps you can prove me wrong for the first time? Wouldn't that be delicious?

Doooo iiiiit.....

But, I was outside last night at the beach with my nephew and I commented on how flat the horizon is.  He agreed.  I then verified this morning that it still is very flat.

That's funny. I look out the window and see mountains. Not flat at all.

jrao, how did you verify the horizon is flat when you were talking with your nephew? With naked eye that is incapable of distinguishing sufficiently small objects one from another? With naked eye that can't notice if the edge of the object you are looking at from 1m is perfectly straight or curved?

Please provide your data and methods for a proper pear review.  Thank you in advance. 

Please provide your data and methods for a proper pear review.  Thank you in advance.

Not only is it 'peer review', you dipshit, it's also something YOU refuse to do.

Maybe you don't need subsolar point?
But it is not the question of ONE SINGLE subsolar point in one single moment of time.
Point is in relations between subsolar points as time goes by.

Example:

Australia.
Middleton, Queensland, close to Tropic of Capricorn.
Coordinates: 22.359 degrees south, 141.553 degrees east.
Anmatjere, Northern Territory, close to Tropic of Capricorn.
Coordinates: 22.244 degrees south, 133.396 degrees east.

Distance between them 520.46 miles. Ground pretty flat, not hard to measure.
Distance between their meridians 8.157 degrees.
Ground speed of subsolar point 957 miles per hour.
(Subsolar point travels same as Sun: 15 degrees per hour.)

At that speed subsolar point in 24 hours travels 22968 miles.
So, circumference of Almost-Tropic-of-Capricorn is 22968 miles.

Smaller than circumference of equator.

~~~~~

Does the example above have error(s)?
Does it have unnecessary steps?
How would you calculate same thing?

I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods. 

I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.

I just gave you the example.

How would you calculate it?

I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.

Pears



Peers



Peer review

So, data and no methods, huh?  Is that not the definition of blind faith? 

So, data and no methods, huh?  Is that not the definition of blind faith?

The only one that's blind is you. There are several suggestions in this thread for you to try out. Several sets of data have been presented.

You are (again) defeated.

Must suck quite badly for you. You are having a *really* bad week, flat-earth-wise.

Here: go download this and see where the program fails. http://www.stellarium.org/us

My week has actually been amazingly good.  I got married on Friday,  thank you very much. 

Congratulations!

Thanks!

Congratulations, and best wishes for long happy life together.

So, data and no methods, huh?  Is that not the definition of blind faith?

You are engineer?
You said you are.

Method is pretty simple algebra.
Gave you on silver platter
- distance between places,
- angular distance between places,
- angular speed of subsolar point (must be equal to angular speed of the Sun),
...

Looks pretty obvious to any high school student.
And maybe middle school.

Any objections?

Congratulations jroa!!

I would be happy to pear review you if you roundies would ever provide data and methods.

I like pears, so you have any reliable "pear reviews" of pears availed "Down Under"?

Still there are noteworthy events that would put trivia like spelling out of your mind! You're forgiven.